LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  August 2011

DATETIME August 2011

Subject:

Re: August 4 Draft

From:

Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 7 Aug 2011 21:20:25 +0200

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (105 lines)

Hello!

Thanks for the Draft! It seems to be a good job!

I tried to read it both with my knowledge acquired by been active on this 
list and as if I didn't know anything about it. Of course, that is quite 
impossible, but I tried it and hope that some issues that may be unclear 
for people not acquainted with EDTF appeared. I note both small typos and 
need for clarifications, along with a couple of wider suggestions.

Here, I try to formulate those both parallel readings in the order in 
which they occur in the specification:

At the beginning, the word "extenstions" seems to be misspelled.

001 - In the "feature" column, the word "date" is written with lower case 
initial, whereas the first word in this column is spelled with uppercase 
initial in all other rows of the tables.

001 - I consider that "year zero" should be clarified (maybe with an 
external link) for readers not acquainted with this concept.

002 - "Time zone" should be rewritten to "Time zone offset" for clarity. 
When changing from / to summer or winter time, we change offset without 
necessarily changing time zone, and what we mean is offset.

004 - 2004-02-01 is not "January 2" (three times)

004 - "2004-02-01/2005-02-08 [...] Month precision." Here, I assume you 
mean "day precision".

101 - "close to correct" A reader may wonder how close we mean.

102 - Here, I'm reminded of the following quotation from an e-mail:

> Thus 196u means: [...] "I hope to fill in the blanks".
This quote (although informal) could be quite illuminating for readers not 
acquainted to what we mean.

201 - The word "portion" would need to be clarified. Readers may wonder 
about constructs such as:

2004-(06-11)?

2004?-06-(11)~

(2004-(06)~)?

2004-04-(1)?1

In other words, I consider there is a need for clarifications about nested 
parentheses and the number of digits and dashes they may contain.

202 - We could clarify the concept of "consecutive digits". What about

186u-u2-05

for example? Are these two digits to be considered consecutive? Readers 
may also wonder whether the following constructs

1uuu-02-05

186u-02-0u

are allowed.

203 - A clarification is needed about constructs such as:

[1667, 1760-12]

204 - If a book is published both in 1960 and in december 1961 (according 
to what is printed in the book), is it OK to write:

{1960, 1961-12}

205 - A reader may wonder why the following is not allowed:

2004-06-uu/2004-07-03

when we mean that an event began on an unspecified day in june 2004.

207 - I wonder about the usefulness of this feature, if the only allowed 
value also is default.

208 - At the beginning of the rightmost column, there is a space that 
should not be there: ' e' should probably be spelled 'e'

209 - The datatype of the Season Qualifier is not specified. I remember 
that we wrote it would be "xs:string", but xs:string allow (right) 
parentheses and otherwise parentheses that do not need to be paired, which 
may lead to problems when parsing. We could write "xs:string without 
parentheses". I think I would prefer the datatype xs:anyURI with the 
constrain that any right parenthesis would be escaped as '%29' (as usual 
in such contexts). Using anyURI would ease language independent 
comparisons. We could qualify a season such as:

2001-21^(http://dbpedia.org/page/Southern_Hemisphere)

We could also suggest a number of adequate URIs, making clear that users 
may use any URIs they wish.

Regards!

Saašha,

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
March 2014
September 2013
May 2013
February 2013
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager